It's Tough to Hear, But . . . Your Company Doesn't Always Need You

&NewLine;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;As one CEO acknowledged&comma; "You don't really know the strength of the organization until you've seen what happens when the leader disappears for a while&period;"&NewLine;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;&Tab;

It’s common for startup leaders to feel that they have to do it all&period; That they have to be involved in every project&comma; have all the answers and keep a hundred other balls up in the air&period; But that type of micromanagement can be destructive for any organization over time&comma; say Barry Kaplan and Jeff Manchaster&period;

These two should know&comma; as partners in the executive coaching firm Shift180 and co-authors of The Power of Vulnerability&period; Kaplan&comma; who's based in Ridgewood&comma; NJ&period;&comma; and Manchaster&comma; who's in Fort Lauderdale&comma; Fla&period;&comma; tell how they once worked with the CEO of a medical equipment distribution company&period; The CEO was a self-admitted micromanager&comma; the consultants say&period; Checking in with his team&comma; they found its members all very frustrated and unable to do their jobs&period;

When&comma; on top of the company's leadership problem&comma; a key customer threatened to leave&comma; Kaplan said&comma; he and Manchaster sprang into action&period; “We coached the CEO to meet with his team&comma; state the facts about the customer and then just ask one question of the team&colon; ‘What do you guys think we need to do to make sure our customer is happy&quest;’” Kaplan recounted via email&period;

“Jaws dropped around the table&period;”

No one on the team had expected the CEO to take a step back and actually let them work&period; But&comma; when he did&comma; the employees rose to the occasion&comma; developing a solution that impressed the customer&period;

The message here&quest; Sometimes a company functions better without its leader&period; And for leaders who consider themselves the center of everything&comma; this can be a hard pill to swallow&period; But letting a company go leaderless -- under certain circumstances -- lets employees spread their wings&comma; and frees leaders to focus on more important things&period;

Here are three scenarios where it works for a leader to step back&period;

Scenario 1&colon; When leaders aren’t the experts

No one is an expert at everything&period; Even the most talented leaders have gaps in their skill set&period; But a great leader needs to acknowledge when he or she is not the best person to tackle a challenge&period; That's when employees should be allowed to lead&comma; in an area where they excel&period;

“I have stepped back from areas that are not in my core competency&comma;” Houston-based Wesley Middleton&comma; the author of Violent Leadership&comma; told me&period; “I make sure that everyone on the team is a leader and not just a functional player&period; As I develop the people around me to lead&comma; it frees me to perpetuate the vision and purpose of the organization&comma; exponentially&period;”

If you're the CEO&comma; make sure you're not always down in the trenches -- that&comma; instead&comma; you sometimes back up and watch&period; Pay attention to which employees step up and the skills they use to develop a solution&period; Then&comma; sit down with those individuals and ask how they felt leading&period; If the experience excited them&comma; create a plan for them to take on more responsibilities&period;

Scenario 2&colon; When work&sol;life balance is in jeopardy

Leaders are human&period; They need to find a balance between their work and home lives&period; But they often feel guilty taking time off for personal reasons&period; And this sets a bad work&sol;life balance example for employees&period; It also leaves the leaders themselves feeling burned out or unhappy that they've missed major moments in their children's lives&period;

David Hammer&comma; for example&comma; is the founder and CEO of the New York-based sales intelligence network Emissary&period; His company was in the middle of a pivot when his first child was born&comma; he said&period; Despite his worries about that situation&comma; he knew he needed to take paternity leave&period;

“As a leader&comma; you’re sometimes propping up the company&comma;” he said in an email&period; “Alternatively&comma; sometimes the company could handle &lsqb;things&rbrack; just fine on its own&comma; if only you weren’t in the way&period; Either way&comma; you don’t really know the strength of the organization until you’ve seen what happens when the leader disappears for a while&period;”

In this context&comma; leaders can’t operate at full strength unless they take time for themselves&period; Even if mistakes occur while they’re away&comma; those mistakes provide leaders with a chance to make positive changes&period; Their absence exposes problems that otherwise never would have come to light&period;

Scenario 3&colon; When employees need to develop

In a sense&comma; leaders are safety nets for employees&period; They help them overcome mistakes and right the course of the organization when things get side-tracked&period; But taking over the ship in every instance can create a sterile environment where employees can’t learn&period;

“It is important that we give individuals the tools to succeed&comma;” Rob Reif&comma; president of the Stamford&comma; Conn-based media planning and buying company&comma; MNI Targeted Media&comma; said via email&period; “But&comma; it is equally as important that we give them the space to use those tools to become the experts and to make their own mistakes&period;”

So&comma; let go of your employees’ hands&period; Trust that they’ve received enough training to work on their own&period; They might even be able to develop a new way of doing things that you might not have envisioned&period; As Reif told me&comma; when employees are able to test out their skills&comma; they form a deeper connection with the work&period; They feel a sense of pride in what they’ve accomplished&comma; because it was "all them&period;"